Strawman fallacy. They (Dangblingus) tried to argue with a completely different topic to try and discredit the argument, without acknowledging the difference.
Edit: since everyone interpreted this wrong.
The statement has two clauses, are you saying we’re not allowed to acknowledge corrections to clause A without also addressing clause B?
That seems a little silly, I’d think you’d strive for the most accurate overall statement, and corrections to either clause should be welcome.
You can offer an objectively true correction without addressing the entire argument, can you not?
EDIT: I misunderstood the comment - disregard this.
If someone stated they like the color blue, and another person states that red is better, asserting that the first person hates red. That would be a stawman.
Op stated unskilled labor means no prior experience.
Comment stated then why is it ok to give slave wages.
OP was not making an argument about wages. Making the comment a starwman since they are arguing a point that was unrelated to the original argument.
Ah, okay, I thought the straw man accusation was pointed at the fellow defining unskilled labor. My bad!